Linda has promised to deal with the weather generators. I will try to
shorten, but if I miss the 25% request, then we will live with it and ask
the secretariat to complete this work. Neither Bruce nor I are aware of
papers with significant new insights concerning uncertainty, methodology
and comparison
since completion of the zeroth draft. Thus, new material will mostly be
brought into Appendix D, i.e. the list of applications.

Time table: I will try to complete the revision, and shortening of 10.6
untilt the end of this week.
A will offer 1-line, or so, responses to the reviewers; Bruce will
incorporate them into his master document dealing with reviewers comments.
After that I will go in some detail through my collection of "new papers"
and prepare an extension of the list in Appendix D; also Bruce will do so.
Eventually, Bruce will merge the original list with the two extensions
prepared by himself and me. Linda, could you update the list as well?

---

The "box"-debate:
Filippo wrote: "We cannot invent information of course, but we can condense
it in this box by including
1) the info relative to what AOGCMs sy for different continent, which is
already there;
2) all possible other info from the techniques.
If there is none or if we can say nothing we'll say we cannot do it for
that specific region. but I think we need to do something because the way
it is, the chapter does not address the right audience, which is not only
made up only of scientists."
The reason why the box may be be of interst for many people is what Mike
says they are not suitable for: "yield the range of possible future
regional climates that impacts studies should consider".

First, continents are according to our definitions not "regional". Second,
could we possibly discuss an example, namely the climate change information
we think to have for, say, South Africa? An example: for the Mediterranean
we (Cubasch et al.) made an intercomparison of AOGCM, high res (T106) time
slices and regional emp. downscaling and found little convergence - for the
same basic global scenario. This is the uncertainty problem, and I thought
our asssessment would be that uncertainty is still too large, in particular
because of lack of convergence on the side of the AOGCM information to be
processed by regionalisation techniques.

Mike wrote: "from the perspective John Houghton seems to be coming from
there is also I think the very important question a lot of people ask about
whether 'downscaling' fundamentally alters the basic GCM results for a
region. Would it be possible to include in the Box therefore any examples of
regional changes derived from GCMs directly and then derived using
alternative downscaling methods driven by that GCM? Just to show the
potential for divergence/convergence at a regional scale between
downscaling methods rather than between different GCMs." That is the
"added-value" problem brought forward by Filippo, which I consider
essential for the entire chapter. We should have such an example.
(I could provide a simple one for precip in Romania, but there may be
better ones around.)

We should be aware that it is our responsibility to assess the certainty
and uncertainty of information
on the regional scale.We should respond to critique concerning incomplete
or incorrect analysis of what has been published, also concerning
linguistic readability. But we must not respond positively to requests for
information to be used in impact and policy analysis, which we do not
consider sufficiently robust for this purpose. We should explain why we
don't think the information robust yet. Climate research has become a
postnormal science, with the intrusion of political demands and significant
influence by activists driven by ideological (well meant) concerns. On the
other hand, we have to defend the credibility of our science.